How To Achieve 3D POP in Your Images (Leica vs Zeiss)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 12 сер 2022
- Some say 3D pop is a myth. Only photographers who bought cheap lenses say this. 3D pop is real, let's talk about what it is, and how to achieve it in your photos and videos. Don't cheap out on your lens. Leica and Zeiss are known to have this special look, zoom lenses almost never do. It's different than Bokeh or Toneh. We have some examples today with the Sony A7S III with Zeiss 55mm f1.8, a lens with 3d pop vs the Canon 6D II with 16-35mm f2.8, a lens without 3d pop. Micro contrast is a thing.
You can achieve this look in your photography with micro four thirds too. Olympus EM1 III with Leica 25mm f1.4, known for it's pop. Fuji XH2s with 8-16mm f2.8 no pop. 18mm f1.4 some pop. Zeiss batis 25mm f2, slight pop.
If you buy today's gear through my affiliate links, you can finally enter the 3rd dimension from your 2D world of side stepping crab walkers.
Sony A7S III amzn.to/3RJ4lXo or USED amzn.to/3J9yD1T or bhpho.to/3yeUW0q or USED bhpho.to/3v0Ql1l
Zeiss Batis 25mm f2 amzn.to/3fz3iHF or bhpho.to/3GnpNuq or used! bhpho.to/3H1UYeQ
Zeiss 55mm f1.8 amzn.to/3SNtpx3 or USED amzn.to/3dnodQd or bhpho.to/3zSkyS0 or USED bhpho.to/3QpaeIa
Fuji XH2s amzn.to/3BS5ciT or bhpho.to/3N637ms
Fuji 8-16mm f2.8 amzn.to/3B1UsOO or USED amzn.to/3zgsoWo or bhpho.to/3PEM8IC or USED bhpho.to/3OqWIlO
Fuji 18mm f1.4 amzn.to/3xFOXlw or USED amzn.to/3N5T2F5 or bhpho.to/3HHWkNN
Canon 6D II amzn.to/3v3QGjQ or bhpho.to/3PrdaDE or USED bhpho.to/3IUuhLG
Canon 16-35mm f2.8 III amzn.to/3v6E0sB or RENEWED amzn.to/3Ps8hKw or USED amzn.to/3RNrpEz or bhpho.to/3PIfuWD or USED bhpho.to/3IWa5Jt
Canon 35mm f1.4 L lens mark i amzn.to/3QpaI0W
Olympus EM1 III amzn.to/3SN7mXi or USED amzn.to/3C63ivu or bhpho.to/3dp7UPL or USED bhpho.to/3QlMWCZ
Olympus OM1 amzn.to/3JSIqto or bhpho.to/3H2adVf
Leica 25mm f1.4 amzn.to/3AiT6y5 or USED amzn.to/3bTAKKW or bhpho.to/3oQcWLs or USED bhpho.to/3Qiwm74
Instagram / vegetablepolice
All my gear and recommended products can be found in my affiliate shop, thanks for shopping around! www.amazon.com/shop/vegetable...
Patreon for Monthly Q&A Videos / vegetablepolice
T-shirts and merch! vegetablepolice.threadless.com/
My Monkey Strength ebook payhip.com/b/VyEG
My Music from videos! Entire Discography 15% off vegetablepolice.bandcamp.com/
Random ass donations to paypal.me/vegetablepolice Thank you!
Q-Link Products changed my life! share.shopqlink.com/554.html
My Health Channel Vegetable Police / canadianwargod
My Music Channel Stern Beats / @sternbeats9057 - Комедії
The article on 3D pop photographylife.com/the-death-of-beautiful-rendition-and-3d-pop-on-modern-lenses
If you buy today's gear through my affiliate links, you can finally enter the 3rd dimension from your 2D world of side stepping crab walkers.
Sony A7S III amzn.to/3RJ4lXo or USED amzn.to/3J9yD1T or bhpho.to/3yeUW0q or USED bhpho.to/3v0Ql1l
Zeiss Batis 25mm f2 amzn.to/3fz3iHF or bhpho.to/3GnpNuq or used! bhpho.to/3H1UYeQ
Zeiss 55mm f1.8 amzn.to/3SNtpx3 or USED amzn.to/3dnodQd or bhpho.to/3zSkyS0 or USED bhpho.to/3QpaeIa
Fuji XH2s amzn.to/3BS5ciT or bhpho.to/3N637ms
Fuji 8-16mm f2.8 amzn.to/3B1UsOO or USED amzn.to/3zgsoWo or bhpho.to/3PEM8IC or USED bhpho.to/3OqWIlO
Fuji 18mm f1.4 amzn.to/3xFOXlw or USED amzn.to/3N5T2F5 or bhpho.to/3HHWkNN
Canon 6D II amzn.to/3v3QGjQ or bhpho.to/3PrdaDE or USED bhpho.to/3IUuhLG
Canon 16-35mm f2.8 III amzn.to/3v6E0sB or RENEWED amzn.to/3Ps8hKw or USED amzn.to/3RNrpEz or bhpho.to/3PIfuWD or USED bhpho.to/3IWa5Jt
Canon 35mm f1.4 L lens mark i amzn.to/3QpaI0W
Olympus EM1 III amzn.to/3SN7mXi or USED amzn.to/3C63ivu or bhpho.to/3dp7UPL or USED bhpho.to/3QlMWCZ
Olympus OM1 amzn.to/3JSIqto or bhpho.to/3H2adVf
Leica 25mm f1.4 amzn.to/3AiT6y5 or USED amzn.to/3bTAKKW or bhpho.to/3oQcWLs or USED bhpho.to/3Qiwm74
Instagram instagram.com/vegetablepolice/
All my gear and recommended products can be found in my affiliate shop, thanks for shopping around! www.amazon.com/shop/vegetablepolice
Don't tell Toneh Northurp.
Older glass has more contrast. That added contrast might be the 3D pop you're seeing.
Casey, 3d pop is real. I am a full time wedding photographer abd videographer, who has been shooting sony for 6 years and have tried almost every single lens made by Sony, Sigma, and Tamron. And here is my kit which has been designed entirely around 3d pop:
Sony a7III &IV
Sigma Art 20mm t1.4
Sony Zeiss 35 t1.4
Sony Zeiss 55 t1.8
Sony Zeiss Batis 85 t1.8
1. First misconception is that lower f stops equal ''3D pop!'' Simply shooting at f1.2, does not make it a ''3D pop,'' that's just shallow depth of field aka. ''bokeh,'' that's not ''3D pop.''
2. Second misconception is that only lenses with good micro contrast have that ''3D pop!'' The so called ''3D pop'' has nothing to do with neither macro nor micro contrast.
What gives images that ''3D pop'' is the way the glass elements are designed aka. the geometrical properties of the glass elements. The glass needs to transfer the light onto the cameras sensor in a form of round rendering (3 dimensional aka. multi dimensional rendering) and very good rendering of the distances between different objects in the image, as well as having extremely good rendition of tonality and saturation between different colors of those same objects at different distances.
Depth of field or lower apertures, have absolutely no impact on how anything is rendered by the lens and macro and micro contrast rendering only helps with saturation/tonality performance, meaning neither macro nor micro contrast have direct impact on how the lens renders dimensionality and distance of different objects or how it renders tonality and saturation between different colors of different objects at different distances.
A large number of ''3D pop'' lenses will also have either an apochromatic glass element or apochromatic coating on one of the glass elements (mostly only Zeiss, Voigtlander, Hasselblad and Leica lenses have true apochromatic glass or coatings) which equals to extremely good correction of chromatic and spherical aberrations.
Most modern/latest (post 2014-15) lenses have very flat, one dimensional rendering, with very poor rendition of tonality and saturation (and micro contrast,) which is a result of poor geometrical design of lenses aka. a lens design that is primarily focused on extreme sharpness and getting those f-stops lower and lower, with ten billion glass elements.
Most Ziess and Hasselblad lenses are made this way, as well as some of the Leica, Voigtlander, Nikon/Nikkor, Tokina and old Contax-Zeiss lenses. Sony also has some ''3D pop'' lenses, namely the Sony-Zeiss 50mm f1.4, the Sony-Zeiss 55mm f1.8, the really old(cheapest) 50mm f1.8, the GM 85mm f1.4 and the 600mm f4 - and there are some Fuji lenses with ''3D pop'' as well but it's only two lenses; the 35mm f1.4 and the 80mm f2.8 macro.
Nikon, Leica, Hasselblad, PhaseOne and Voigtlander are the only ones who are still making SOME good quality lenses that are not flat and have that ''3D pop.'' SOME lenses, not ALL lenses. Sonys E mount also has the relatively new 35mm, 50mm, 55mm, 85mm and 135mm from Zeiss, that all have the ''3D pop,'' as well as two of their GM lenses. So there's that...
Any source besides "trust me bro"? Is this something you can measure and analyze? If not, then there is no point
@@Pspet Just test yourself , acting like there is no difference between an 5 elements optic and a 14 is silly as well
What about m43 lenses? I see it clearly on PanaLeica 25mm 1.4, but are there any other lenses with this quality?
Exactly those lenses are rendering very flat due to to many lens elements and too many corrections. That’s why I use low element count lenses like Zeiss Planar / Distagon, Voigtlander lenses and Nikon DC lenses.
3D pop looks like you just took a small dose of LSD and its barely starting to kick in. And everything looks different, but you can't quite put your finger on it
Excellent diagnosis of our intrepid investigating host , but what about the image
@@yourt00bz image a bit disorienting
@@fepethepenguin8287 I’m like a westworld robot looking at a modern photo “I don’t Ee anything at all”
@@yourt00bz So your are like Mark ZuckaBorg
@@fepethepenguin8287 I literally do not know what this is. I see an empty comment. Use Facebook!
Shocking amount of pulsing coming from the Sony 🤨.
Also you're right, the amount of bokeh isn't what creates the 3D pop, it's the falloff. FF (and larger) sensors fall off a lot faster and smoother than smaller sensors so it's always giving this impression of the subject being separated from the background.
Holy cow, unbelievable honestly. That's for sure an update I'm going to hold off on.
Yup. On my e-m10 and pretty much any mft camera for that matter, infinity focus on a 25mm lens kicks in at around 22m or 70something feet. Meaning if your subject is 20 feet away, it already lost the race against the ff equivalent, @35 feet it's defenseless and @50 feet, it's disqualified before you even hear the gunshot, because pretty much infinity focus + foreground blur ≠ 3D pop.
It's science. And science is magic. So it's magic. No one say anything, I am right.
Excellent video about 3D pop. Theoria Apophasis made a video a few years ago about why extremely expensive Zeiss lenses like the Zeiss Otus have Chromatic Aberration is because Chromatic Aberration induces 3D pop. He explained it as being analogous #D down a single lens, and demonstrated with the 3D glasses having Red and Blue lenses. But Red and Blue mixed together equals PURPLE!
Its true, 3D is designed into lenses. I look at all my Pentax images and they're dripping in 3D pop and even from the cheap kit lenses. 85mm and up is the sweet spot for 3D pop, but I've got the Pentax DA12-24mm f/4 which is an UWA lens that can produce 3D pop easily - but people complain about the CA's in most UWA's and now we have sterile looking modern lenses.
I added Fuji to my collection and a 56mm 1.2, and it ain't got the 3D pop like even the cheapest Pentax lenses. So disappointed and ended up selling it and other gear too. Fuji does not have it, and if it does its very faint 3D pop and NOTHING like what I'm getting in Pentax. I've had Nikon's and Sony's.
Leica has got the 3D pop in spades. Check out Matt Osbornes youtube channel and his Leica 90mm f/2 portraits, that lens is off the hook! 3D pop-a-popping! Thats a $4000 to $5000 lens USED. Thats medium format pricing! I hear the MF Zeiss 100mm makro f/2 is also a catch.
But Kasey's Voitlander is excellent with its 3D pop.
Photographers don't get photography, and very few even speak about 3D pop. All they talk about is "Auto focus speed and acquisition" and nothing about 3D pop. In professional photography all they know is Auto Focus and having a trinity lens setup of 15-30mm f/2.8, 24-70mm f/2.8 and 70-200mm f/2.8 - and thats it!
I think I found the video you were talking about (though, judging by my initial impressions of this strange man, I'm willing to bet he's mentioned this topic in passing multiple times throughout his years of videos)!!
ua-cam.com/video/aQm4C3iCk-I/v-deo.html
The link will take you to 5:37, where he mentions that CA (chromatic aberration) relates to 3D depth/pop.
1. First misconception is that lower f stops equal ''3D pop!'' Simply shooting at f1.2, does not make it a ''3D pop,'' that's just shallow depth of field aka. ''bokeh,'' that's not ''3D pop.''
2. Second misconception is that only lenses with good micro contrast have that ''3D pop!'' The so called ''3D pop'' has nothing to do with neither macro nor micro contrast.
What gives images that ''3D pop'' is the way the glass elements are designed aka. the geometrical properties of the glass elements. The glass needs to transfer the light onto the cameras sensor in a form of round rendering (3 dimensional aka. multi dimensional rendering) and very good rendering of the distances between different objects in the image, as well as having extremely good rendition of tonality and saturation between different colors of those same objects at different distances.
A large number of ''3D pop'' lenses will also have either an apochromatic glass element or apochromatic coating on one of the glass elements (mostly only Zeiss, Voigtlander, Hasselblad and Leica lenses have true apochromatic glass or coatings, although Nikon has quite a few lenses with true APO coatings) which equals to extremely good correction of chromatic and spherical aberrations.
Most modern/latest (post 2014-15) lenses have very flat, one dimensional rendering, with very poor rendition of tonality and saturation (and micro contrast,) which is a result of poor geometrical design of lenses aka. a lens design that is primarily focused on extreme sharpness and getting those f-stops lower and lower, with ten billion glass elements.
Most Ziess, Leica, PhaseOne and Hasselblad lenses are made this way, as well as some of the, Voigtlander, Nikon/Nikkor, Tokina and old Contax-Zeiss lenses. Sony also has some ''3D pop'' lenses, namely the Sony-Zeiss 50mm f1.4, the Sony-Zeiss 55mm f1.8, the really old(cheapest) 50mm f1.8, the GM 85mm f1.4 and the 600mm f4 - and there are some Fuji lenses with ''3D pop'' as well but it's only two lenses; the 35mm f1.4 and the 80mm f2.8 macro.
Nikon, Leica, Hasselblad, PhaseOne and Voigtlander are the only ones who are still making SOME good quality lenses that are not flat and have that ''3D pop.'' SOME lenses, not ALL lenses. Sonys E mount also has the relatively new 35mm, 50mm, 55mm, 85mm and 135mm from Zeiss, that all have the ''3D pop,'' as well as two of their GM lenses. So there's that...
@@nogerboher5266 you made a comment about sharpness. I think sharpness is the precise reason why microcontrast IS relevant in achieving “3d pop”. The lower the contrast performance of a lens the more sharpness compensation that is required. In other words a higher contrast lens would allow for a smoother image. This video has a good example of this. The canon r6 mkii has that distinct oversharpened black line around objects as opposed to the Sony which has a very soft image.
I think 3D pop is the ability to render many shades of the same color. A ball with no shadowing will look like a circle. It’s also why shallow depth of field is revered. The more gradations of focus to out of focus makes the images appear 3D to our brains. To me todays super sharp lenses make great snapshots but images that stand out have that 3 Dimensions that add to the realism
To me 3D pop happens when a) the whole subject is in focus (so not too shallow dof), b) there is noticible blurring from shallow dof to the background/foreground, and c) the non subject elements tend to run across the frame in one focal plane and not coming into/out of the camera too much (especially near the subject). I'm sure aberration and other corrections happening differently on in and out of focus elements helps though.
For me, the most "poppy" scene was at 2:44, which has precisely the visual elements you mention.
So you think it comes from both lack of shallow dof but also as a result of shallow dof? How does that make any sense?
@@heatnup6899 shallow dof definitely helps, but ‘too shallow’, when the subject’s nose or ears go out of focus and you start to lose that specific ‘pop’ effect imo.
@@ChrisTuttlePlant I’m not sure dof is at all responsible. I think it instead is the result of good contrast, mainly micro-contrast. A lens with poor micro contrast creates a need to oversharpen to compensate for poor contrast which creates the effect seen on the Canon R6 mkii in this vid. Just like oversharpened monitor images create black outlines around objects the same happens on oversharpened pictures.
@@ChrisTuttlePlant I think the main takeaway from this vid is that chasing the “sharpest” glass isn’t ideal.
My zeiss 100 mm 2.0 makro planar has stunning 3d pop. Same with the 85 planar 1.4. It is a function of a low element count. My zeiss/voigtlander/ 1995 nikon glass has 6 to 8 elements. A nikon 70-200 TWENTY TWO PIECES OF LIGHT SUCKING, REFLECTING, SCRAMBLING GLASS. The extreme amount of micro contrast makes the separation between edges of the subject and background crazy sharp, hence appears 3d. I am a fan of Ken Wheeler, the angry photographer and once you see the difference you will notice it's absence in high element count lenses. This also results in greater tonal transitions in shadows because the low energy shadow light hasn't been sucked out before it reaches the sensor/film. My Mamiya 645 and RB67 have 5 and 6 element lenses with not only stellar pop, but also gorgeous bokeh. Once you see this characteristic, you will be willing to use the focus confirmation arrows and meatball to nail focus on nikon dslrs. I shot a portrait the other day with the 100 mm, and with less than 4" dof, nailed the eyes sharpness on a couple using focus confirmation. And the colors you get from lenses like the voigtlander 58 1.4, every time I look a the lcd, I say wow.
I just love how you still use the term toneh 😄... you're hilarious 😊
What a beautiful illustration! Thanks for this!
6D coming in as flat as the earth.
🤣 bro I gotta give it to you, you're good at comedy. Somebody find this man a light 😂
I was once down this rabbit hole of 3d pop. My conclusions after reading almost every article is that 3d pop is achieved by various photographic techniques coming together... Mostly by accident and thats why it isn't something you can measure.. of course a good lens with good microcontrast helps a bit but it's not in the lens... you need specific things to be done when composing such an image... lets analyze it a bit..
1) You need a background with repeating patterns that doesn't connect to the subject in the foreground by the fall out of the bokeh.. a wall or a straight down cliff with even color (preferably dull colors like gray, brown, earth etc, not green) will do the trick
2) you need 30-80mm lens and you need to stop it down between f4-6.3 as to have all of the subject or person in focus and have a less blurred out background. background should be 30-40 meters behind the subject. reason is that if the subject isn't entirely in focus then it connects with the background through the blurryness. it's a no no
3) you need the whole subject in frame and not touching the borders, there must not be anything else in focus than the subject so it is crucial to avoid including anything else thats in the same plane of field as your subject. no leaves, no bushes no anything.
4) You need some form of sideways backlight in order to light up ever so slightly the rim of your subject like the hair for example and make the subject stand out more
5) More contrast on the subject than the background, can be done in post processing
6) to keep the subject separate from the background it is easier done by having him/her shot from lower angle, so low as the ground they are standing on cannot be seen connecting all the way to the background. You cannot have the bokeh transitioning from less blur to more blur as it falls off into the distance. and thats probably the whole trick to it. just have one equally blurred out background into the same plane far into the distance and only your subject in focus. One scene that i can imagine the 3d pop effect easily being done is if you shoot straight on someone posing on the edge of a pool board. That way you can separate his/her body from having contact with the blurred out background from any direction. Another shot you could do that is if your subject is standing on a slightly higher ground than you like for example some city squares that are raised up by 3-5 steps and you're shooting from a distance as to not be so obvious that you are photographing from a lower angle.
7) Contrasting colors, red jacket on blue waterfall background for example is tremendously helpfull for the 3d pop effect
Mind you this ain't scientific at all. it's my observations after seeing many images that look 3d pop to my eyes. So this is all subjective but you can experiment with it if you got the free time
You don't need any of that. You can take two exact photos, of the same exact scene with different lenses, side by side, at the same time and take a photo with a lens that doesn't appear to have it, and then one that does and you WILL see it, EVERY TIME.
@@Warrior_Resisting_Colonialism Do you have a suggestion of a lens with that effect to use on a sony mirrorless body or a canon dslr?
@@zampination No. Sorry. I'm a Nikon DSLR user. If you have a Nikon adapter, you can buy two vintage lenses;
135mm 2.8 Nikkor the 135mm 2.8 series E
(they sell for around $80 - E / $125 - Nikkor) and you'll notice the "budget" E will outperform the higher end Nikkor glass in "3d pop"!
That's the cheapest test I can think of. I did it, because I mistakenly bought the E and I fell in love with it and couldn't understand why. I figured the Nikkor would be better, but it's not, so I sold the two nikkor copies I tested against it. It's the cool old school "3d pop" that sets the 135mm 2.8 series E apart.
I saw it in EVERY test shot I took.
The Nikkors (both the AI and AI-S share the same optics) took "flat" looking, low contrast, low "3d pop" photos compared to the "budget, consumer" grade at the time "series E" which is houses less glass.
@@zampination If you can get a cheap adapter, you'll LOVE this old school vintage lens too, by the way. It's so fun to play with! You might re-sell them both, but I bet you keep the E! :D They take stunning photos with very pleasing color and great background blur wide open. You can shoot them wide open, to all the way closed down, all photos are keepers! (with either version)
It's by far, my favorite vintage Nikon glass I've tested. I love the little sucker, even though I have some modern glass too. So pint being, in the end, this affordable test will probably lead you to finding and keeping a hidden gem.
@@Warrior_Resisting_Colonialism I'll definitely give it a try! Thanks! So far i have developed some masking techniques that can simulate the the 3d pop fairly well on any lens, but I'd definitely want that to happen straight out of the camera so I'll give it a shot on the used market!
Hi! Are you on multi or zone on the sony?
Zeiss 35mm f2 Distagon ZF.2 definitely has it. I used to have it and sold it. Looking back at the images in wedding albums, all the Zeiss images had a magic to them. It's hard to tell just by looking at a one off image but if you view a series of images from different lenses the magic reveals itself. I've since bought the lens again and will be adapting to the X-H2 as one of the main cameras at weddings as it's very easy to focus being such a short focus throw. Still waiting to arrive in the post.
The Olympus view is quite nice. Good colour, nice softness, doesn't overly blur the background... I quite like it. :)
This video was absolutely brilliant ! I definitely see it 👀
Hey Kasey, love your vids! After seeing the focus hunt on the a7SIII, it got me thinking...there's a line saying "Improves the stability of the custom white balance" in the new firmware 2.10 description - does it at least finally allow you to choose custom white balance while in Memory Recall settings(1/2/3 on the dial)? Thanks you're awesome!
I learnt a lot! More gear acquisition should be finding all vintage throw away 3D lenses. That depth is real when you see it side by side. Some major lens mojo going on
I think if you could nail the color and the exposure a little better that would make a way bigger difference than any of the lenses you're using. I still haven't seen a single frame on your channel that looks what would call "good". I do appreciate the humor, you are probably youtube's 2nd most funny camera content creator.
You clearly don`t get it. It`s not about that, it definitelly is not.
LoL
Gotta say, that was fun to watch, I LIKE THIS TOPIC, keep it going. Zeiss on Fuji next as you foreshadowed?
You are engaging and very funny, and the background music added a great extra element. Thank you sir!
From what I can see from the sony auto-focus, it is the same as in the Canon R5 with firmware 1.5.0. There was an identical situation, fortunately they caught up and eliminated it in 1.5.2 and even improved the auto-focus and successively reduced the R5 overheating problems in 1.6.0 to virtually zero
The best 3D pop you can probably get is from the old Zeiss Jena Pancolar serie from the 80s, especially the 50mm.
By the end of the year Canon will release a successor to the R serie: wait for it, before buying an R.
BTW, the cheap RP is exactly the same as the 6Dmkll with better AF.
85mm GM has that 3D effect. I don't know what it does but it's something magical about it.
Yeah, I agree. I absolutely love that lens. I know it doesn't get great reviews, but it's a go to for me.
Its funny, I love that Sony hard... until I see it next to anything else. Everything else looked better in this video. Olympus did itself proud - looked great. Fuji colours rocked. Canon, over-sharpened-ness looked good here for some weird reason, especially in the side-by-sides - we never know what we are going to like on any given day... Good reason to stick with whatever you have and make that work.
We need a "3D pop truther" shirt 😆
Was gonna recommended that DIY perks but you mentioned it. When I saw that I immediately thought of you
very interesting. thank you.
I love using my old 50mm Sonnar from the 50s, I feel like the out of focus areas have some haze added to them and that haze isn’t in the in-focus areas, which gives a neat-looking difference in contrast and darker blacks on the in-focus subject? Is that what 3D pop is?
that astia soft looks so great besides the SONY PUKEY GREEN
Leica R 90mm has it all day. I use it on my R4 and adapted to my Fuji XT-2. Magical, Bro!
I notice huge differences with your own videos and other UA-cam channels INSIDE and really want that 3d pop for inside shots. Interesting also when considering your video comparing focal lengths (getting that “flattering but not realistic” portrait distance which looks flatter)
I might be falling for you, CC. YOU AND YOUR VIDEOS ARE AWESOME SAUCE! I hope SOMEONE makes the perfect camera just so I (who knows squat about cameras) can see you smile with glee!
I have a Voigtlander 50mm f1.5 M39 lens obtained when the Bessa R was introduced which I have used for shoulders-up portraits taken in open shade with my A7ii and those portraits have a subjectively ineffable character. I have also a similar look with my other old manual focus primes, such as my 135mm Minolta MD f2.8, in open shade at maximum aperture.
I agree that old lens designs, even in modern lenses, produce a different look than modern lens designs. Whether one prefers that look is another question, and some people may not like manual focusing a lens, which is a new world to people that did not begin photography before AF took over.
Great video .. I've noticed a 3d pop with the fuji 23mm f2
Back in the 80s I had a Canon A1 with a Canon f1.4 50mm FD lens. I took a series of photos of a cottage room that had just window illumination. I took about 8 photos and 3 photos came back with amazing 3d pop that I have not really seen since. Even people that didn't know anything about photography recognized that there was something special about those images. 3D pop is real and was real even back in the film days.
It is still a myth, sorry. It is subjective - if you have science to back it up, then prove me wrong. You just base your 3D Pop experience on how you perceive pictures with 3D Pop. In my opinion, you see 3D Pop due to flaws in magnification and lens quality, nothing more.
All big camera and lens manufacturers, and even niche ones, do not market their lenses to have 3D Pop. These brands won't because they recognize this as a myth.
@@MrQwertypoiuyty If its how the image is perceived then does it matter if its real or not? The images I was talking about were perceived by everyone that viewed them so real or not its there and it does kinda make the image more appealing .
@@microwave-vh2uc Exactly. When photos have them, EVERY ONE can clearly see it. It's not a myth.
Great video, keep it up.
That Fuji XH2s image was glorious.
Yeah that do it yourself guy with the 0.4 periscope homemade lens was just 🤯 glad you also saw that video, ultimate Toneh
In regards to the Autofocus. I had that 55mm lens do exactly the same thing before the firmware updates. It really struggles when you are small in the frame and also have a lot of highlights going on. When I got mine it failed in a tree-scene a number of times until I filled up a good 1/3 of the frame. It may be worse now though, which isn't good! Cool video. :)
Always happy to see a comment from my favourite lefty guitar player!
Yeah the 55 has crap autofocus in video. Only one thing to do, buy the 50mm GM. 😀
I'm curious, did you use some log on that Olumpus footage? Dynamic range worse than a penguin lullaby. Or is that just poor exposure?
I saw things you talk about. I have your favorite panasonic G85 and 2 "portrait" lenses. Olympus 45 f1.8 and vintage Helios 58 f.2.0 with adaptor and Helios has this 3D POP in compare(this in micro 4/3 looser on ful frame glory it will be cool).
Coincidentally 3D Pop is also my favorite music genre.
"3D pop" is achieved by sharp focus on the subject and not overdoing the Toneh. You're welcome. 😉
Very interesting subject, but I was surprised to see that none of the examples actually has the 3D effect. Lovely tone and style, though. Keep going!
Some lenses with amazing 3D Pop:
Angénieux-Zoom 1:2.8 / 45-90mm (Leica R)
Leitz Super-Angulon 21mm 1:4
Leitz Summilux 50mm 1:1.4 Version I (1959)
Leitz Rigid Summicron 50mm 1:2
Leica R 75-200mm 1:4.5 (Minolta)
Nikkor 35-70mm 1:3.5 Ai and Ai-S
Nikkor 50-135mm 1:3.5 Ai-S
Nikkor 50-300mm 1:4.5
Nikkor 300mm 1:2.8 ED Ai-S
PENTAX 50mm 1:1.4 SMC K
... and many many more
I must admit that I'm not a fan of Astia in the inside, but outside, especially in the greens, it looks stunning!
Hilarious video :D The voigtlander is absolute magic, my god. I wish something like that existed with AF.
First time I noticed 3D pop was as an utter novice not even looking for it after putting a Zuiko 50 and an old Helios adapted to a consumer level Nikon. People claiming it doesn't exist just haven't experienced it... and /or are perhaps skeptical due to the over-hype of it and fear of ridicule should they accept its existence. You know, kind of like "Sasquatch". :-) Laugh. Laugh all you like but...I'm just sayin. By the way, thank you CC for NOT sucking at your job....carrying around, setting all that gear up, mixing comedy with layman's tests, not to mention the organization and effort involved to keep up with the work flow and editing....respect. Lots of respect extended to you.
What kind of sandals are those? Are they a sponsor? Do you have a discount code?
I see it too. With my iPhone I can zoom in up to 8 times on you video. It’s definitely there!!
Wow, that AF hunting with the new firmware update reminds me of Panasonic AF. That's insane. I have the A7iv. I hope they don't pass on that AF twitching onto the A7iv. Good demonstration of the 3D pop with some good ole Kasey humor thrown in.
I believe this video is simply a fever dream that I need to wake up from.
Try the otus lineup.
They deliver the most dimensionality that i have ever used and owned.
Its just crazy when you turn millimeters on the focus ring it will completly Change the background and feel of the Image.
I think it has to do with the smoothness of the toneh balls or boke balls, I believe the old M42 pentax lenses have 3d poppage if you want to test it
It's easy to get separation from an in focus subject and oof background, but with the zeiss 35 mm 2.0 distagon, I can stop down for environmental portraits and STILL have the subject pop from the in focus bg, Photographers and painters work hard to create a third dimension in a 2 dimensional photo/painting and these lenses help create that.
I would love to see the comparison between identical lenses, one modern and one vintage, everything else equal,to see how they are different. your tests was either between camera with different sensor size and you have to compensate with different focal length, or between fix and zoom lens…
what lens should I buy for the s1h Panasonic to get 3d pop
How dose the P40 pro compair? And what about xeperia (sony) vs China
"3D pop" is why I still shoot with my old Yashica lenses I got in the 70s and 80s. I haven't considered the CA correction as the culprit.
I don't believe CA has anything to do with it.
I do see it thanks for the comparisons. Can you try and borrow a full frame cannon and see what it looks like?
If there's not enough contrast/saturation separation between the foreground and background, as if there was no atmosphere or haze in between, it tends to kill that 3D look.
Those subtle nuances tend to get lost somehow on smaller cheaper cameras.
I'm guessing 3D-pop could be partially quantified in an MTF, but perhaps the lines normally used do not represent the length scales that are most relevant for this effect. Either way there is a world of difference between my Sigma 24-70 T2.8 DG DN and my Voigtländer 50mm T2 APO. At the same aperture and focal length the Voigtländer pops way more(though admittedly it also has a pretty nice MTF). Lateral chromatic aberrations probably don't help as the reduce contrast on edges, which sort of blends the subject with the background, but Longitudinal ones might help a bit, as they tend to make the toneh smoother.
I don't think it's that simple, cause when you take a medium format camera with a bright lens, it's not apples-to-apples comparable to a 135 format camera with an equivalent angle of view and DoF lens. Same goes for large format with bright lenses. The background/blur falloff seems different and more "smooth" as the image is larger and the focal length is longer.
@@KNURKonesur I think this has to do with it simply being easier to create good larger format lenses with equivalent depth of field, since the F-number i is smaller. Most lenses get sharper as they are stopped down, until they become diffraction limited. Basically less compromises need to be made in the optical formula when the maximum aperture is smaller.
“This nature, it’s beautiful and you throw up on it, it’s rude” 😆
Perhaps the most 3D POPpy lens is the cheap classic 50/1.8. It's so small and light, because there's only 3D POPpyness inside and nothing else :)
I found different camera's lens sensor stack thickness effects 3D pop. That's why I switched to Z7 for shooting vintage glass. Some cameras are better than others at revealing the lenses true 3D pop character. Also there are some amazing combinations of sensor glass and lens that produce special results I can't explain.
you mean stacked sensors like r3, z9 and a1 produces more 3d pop?
Almost all Soviet lenses have that characteristic Zeiss pop, because their optical formulas are the same as Zeiss'. Can't go past them for manual focus video, IMO. I've shown video I've taken on lenses like the Mir-24 35mm f/2 and VarioZenitar-K 25-45 f/2.8-3.5 to some videographers I work with, they'll always comment on how good/plastic the bokeh looks.
It's definitely a characteristic of how the bokeh renders, and also how stable the bokeh is. Look at a lens with 3D pop, zoom into the bokeh and slow it down - you will see how stable each bokeh ball looks. This contributes greatly to the 3D pop effect.
There is something really special about that 55mm lens. It’s a real classic.
Not for video though, it’s got crappy video autofocus. Good for stills though.
One of the best lenses Sony ever released. Love mine.
Yes I remember the first time I shot a portrait with the 55 f 1.8, I now have the za 35mm f 2.8, Batis 40mm and 25mm
Can we get the pany boy gh6 review? it doesn't feel complete without ur review
I have 15mm f1.7 and rokinon 35mm t1.5, do any of them have the 3d pop?
Subject isolation is not just bokeh. All qualities of defocused distortion come into play, as far as I can tell, to get that “pop“. This includes chromatic aberration, longitudinal ca, field curvature, astigmatisms, vignette, and intervention distortions… How much “pop“ is because of dodging and burning at the enlarger?
You just reminded me of a couple of vintage B&W photos I have seen that really do POP. I hope that I can find them again.
Wet collodion probably has the greatest "pop" of all photographic processes, and that has to do with close-range UV (they also use simple old lenses, mostly triplets or anastigmats, which allow a lot of close-range UV to pass through).
There is a type of photo medical (UV/IR dermatology) that achieves things just as "deep"
After watching a bunch of videos and reading forums my conclusion is that, composition aside, pop comes from low contrast shadows and high contrast colors. I think of it like of polirising filter that also affects shadows. In drawing and painting it's called valour, I think. If you can tell a clear valour of a body of "paint" in frame, it'll give less busy composition.
Arrright dude, I'm going to order a Sony reptilian t-shirt in bright orange, and trying out a Zeiss 55 avec un 'Sony' due to your infectious enthusiasm... thanks, thanks for making spend a whole lot. mmmm, bright orange...
Try the legendary Helios lenses, it'll blow your mind
Brilliant
You're going to love the nikon z primes
Hey Casey, loving your videos. Best camera channel under the firmament. I have an X-H1 and a Pixel 6. I shoot talking heads videos, commercial coffee roasting/brewing footage, some vlogging, and have been trying to start shooting some wildlife as well. While I can cope with the terrible AF of the X-H1, the weight of the camera, and lack of articulating screen, is leading me down a rabbit hole that is going to result in an over-the-top setup, reminiscent to what you and Jared demonstrated in your video about vlogging in raw.
I've been considering adding an additional camera to either compliment or replace the X-H1. Curious if you have any thoughts on the X-A7. It's light and I occasionally see it at great prices. I've also been considering an X-T4, DJI Pocket 2, X-S10, Canon M with Magic Lantern, M200, or just playing with some Moment lenses to make the Pixel less boring and more usable. (Could use wide angle lens with better Pixel sensor).
Thoughts or suggestions? Please cure my GAS.
H.A.G.S.
-Toby
Oh, also considering an M6II, ZV-1 or ZV-E10. MAYBE A7c?
OM-1 M2?????
I get 3D pop with my EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L ISM. It is crazy pop. And on an APS-C sensor. However, this is with photos and not video. Great vids btw.
That 0.4 diy lens is insane
Yep. It exists. I had a 70's Zeiss 50/1.8, manual focus adapter to a Sony A72. Maybe $150. It had 3D pop.
All zeiss classic lenses , ze and zf do have 3d pop in their image output. But its all manual lenses. I shoot lot of zeiss classics with 5d classic. You should definitely try. Vintage and pop overload.
The 3d pop from vintage lenses comes from every little imperfection that slightly separates parts of the image.
Bokeh rolloff (appears as imperfect focus becuz not just subject in focus)
Chromatic abberation (off white tint on foreground and background)
Slight Fisheye distortion due to lens design being more "wide" or curved.
No software compensation to further distort the image causing unnatural artifacts like ripple distortion.
Sharpness rolloff being best in the center of the lens.
All these imperfections gives people clues as to what's in foreground background and focal plane. They're only clues because for humans,using 2 eyes to focus on the same object is the main way we feel distance.
I agree with this assessment. In the last 12 years lens designs have prioritized image correction via optical refinement and in camera processing. All of Sony's new lenses are trending to go smaller and lighter because they are moving more optical corrections into software and developing light weight glass and optical grade plastic lenses. Its why we have things like De-enhancer plugins!
I think this is correct but I think that this is also something about the way that older lenses are not as good at collimated light which is part of the reason that they are less sharp edge to edge. Also the fact that the light is less collimated creates a stronger and more artistic ('painterly' or less sharp) bokeh because the out of focus portions of the image are still traveling straighter in modern lenses. Somewhat analogous to the difference between painting with a small paint brush versus a large one, you are putting down the same colors in the same amounts but there is going to be a much less resolution with big brush. It is the same phenomenon that happens with chromatic aberration but instead of individual wave lengths of light it is all of the light. I think that all of the things you mentioned increase the effect of what I am mentioning.
I have thought of a way to test my theory (or at least demonstrate the effect of it) although I don't have the equipment to test right now as I don't have a great '3d pop' lens. I bet that a modern very sharp lens would be better at a f8 landscape (measured by maximum percent of frame in focus) whereas you would be getting soft and distorted areas in the '3d pop' lens. However, that advantage would directly invert if you were to take an up close portrait at a lower f-stop (say f2.8) and would get better bokeh (as described above).
@@jessejayphotography I think that part of this is also the increase precision in which they can produce glass elements so they can make fewer glass elements because they are able to correct more with less. Also, I think lens coatings have improve the performance of certain elements of the lens to the point where again you can do more with less.
I agree with 90% of this list of "why". But yeah, no doubt it's real. First time I noticed it was as an utter novice not even looking for it after putting a Zuiko 50 and an old Helios adapted to a consumer level Nikon. People claiming it doesn't exist just haven't experienced it... and /or are perhaps skeptical due to the over-hype of it and fear of ridicule should they clam it to exist. You know, kind of like "Sasquatch". :-) Laugh. Laugh all you like but...I'm just sayin.
I agree with you in your list, except Bokeh rolloff is also called "foreground defocus" and "background de-focus" and the interplay of the defocus rate and how it affects the 3D effect.
Chromatic Aberrations being purple. Go look at the Wkipedia page for Chromatic Aberrations and click on their photo of a building that sort of looks Greek in architecture. Squint when you look at the image and you can see the building look more 3 dimensional with the CA image. While the lower no CA image looks flat. Its purple fringing that needed. Analogous 3D in a single lens. In a 3D movie they shoot with 2 cameras close to each other, and then the audience wears a pair of glasses with a red and blue lens. So when you mix red and blue paint you get purple. Thats what its doing down a single lens, that a proper 3D twin camera setup does.
I'm not too sure about the Fisheye in your list there, but I do not think that that is happening. Because the best 3D pop can happen on longer focal lengths 85mm and up. Like 135mm and 200mm and 300mm. I've seen some staggeringly great images off the Pentax DA* 300mm f4 that pop like crazy. Or the Leica 90mm f/2 on Matt Osbornes youtube channel, that lens is off the hook, but at $4000 used it ain't cheap. So at the longer focal lengths we're getting compression and not so much fisheye.........
But that being said your "Sharpness rolloff" might be where you're seeing the fisheye look. Its also called "edge softness" where a lens designer made the lens to be sharp in the center and towards the edges of the frame there is falloff/rolloff of sharpness to create that Fisheye-y lens look. This is true. But it is not always necessary as some of the edge to edge sharp lenses can pull of 3D effect without the soft edges.
In all seriousness, 3D pop can also be made stopped down. Just look at Sail Chong highlight reels.
Try doing a video on "micro contrast".
*I think the 3D pop comes from the lens, not the sensor size it's projected on.
You should try SLR Magic lenses for some nice 3d pop ;)
You say "Sony firmware update of the century". I can't see any updates on the Sony site, what update are you referring to?
I discovered this, playing with a couple vintage Nikon lenses. Nikon made a 135mm 2.8 AI and AI-S and they used to make an "E series" back then too. They made, like a half dozen of them. They were built more like today's lenses is all; with plastic. So one could argue that all lenses made today are now "E series" equivalents... but I digress. Anyway, one them are in fact the 135mm 2.8 and it sells for less than the Nikkor.
Well, I tried TWO copies (one AI and one AI-S which have the exact same optics) against the E and it was the E that has FAR more of this "3d pop"! So much so, the TINY spec of increased sharpness (from wide open at 2.8 to 3.5 while pixle peeping to see it) was TOTALLY negated and blown away by the then, "budget/ consumer" grade E!
I Fell right in instant love the 135mm 2.8 Series E that I mistaken thought was a Nikkor that I thought, my god if this little sweetheart is this nice, I HAVE to try the Nikkor! Well, needless to say, I sold both Nikkors and kept the E!
For who want to know, it took some digging, but I finally did find and confirm the E contains less glass. In this case, less is more!
Most people will never know this. Most will never both the E and the Nikkor of this vintage lens to test them side by side like this. But they're cheap enough, you can.
Another example that I just saw while flipping through Flickr photos, is the older lenses;
"The beast" - 28-70mm f2.8 AF-S (with it's failure prone first gen focus motor which I own)
against the 35-70mm 2.8 AF screw drive lens. I was blown away by the photos in sharpness for the $! I was gunna get one to play with but then I compared these and "the beast" although my copy is manual focus only, produced FAR superior "3d pop"! That's what sets it apart. Not it's sharpness!
I didn't compare these optic formulas but in this case, the higher end lens surpasses the lower end one.
This is older stuff, but it's fun and affordable to play with still. I don't need to spend the kind of money it takes to play with new lenses. I mean I do have a couple too, don't get me wrong, but when it's stuff I don't primarily have a use for, I like playing with vintage glass. Anyway, point being, you can clearly see this in photos too and to me, this is even more important than just sharpness.
Minotla Rokkor 58mm 1.2,Voightlander Nokton 40mm 1.2 and the full frame TTartisan 50mm 0.95 have some nice 3d pop to the images.
I saw it exists when I switched from Tamron 17-28 to Sony 20 1.8
3D pop is not just about F stops and depth of field. Partly yes but not completely, it is about how many gradations of light can be captured. In the Zeiss and Voitlangder lenses, we can see that richer tonal depth is captured. Highlights are less harsh, shadows not as crushed, colors are more rich, saturated and true. We can have an image with great pop at F8 and an image with poor pop at F0.95. And yes, these qualities were mostly present in vintage lenses, but there are some vintage lenses with terrible pop or image fidelity. On the other hand, there are modern lenses with great pop. 2 great prime examples that come to mind are the 45mm F1.8 Tamron and 35mm F1.4 Tamron, also the Canon RF 50mm f1.2 etc... Also true that low element countglass comprised of quality Lead based glass can be a contributor. The more you add glass, the more attenuation is applied to the light before it reaches the camera sensor. But there are also some low element count lenses that are terrible and some primes with 15 element with great pop.
you r into a metaphysics teritory here, as a fan of manual lens,i can give some recommendation,the dlsr version zeiss 85 1.4 zf or ze version all will do,zf prefered, pentax 77 1.8, nikon ais 105 2.5, voightlander 65 2,they r all pack with 3D pop,or i would say "Visual HIFI"
You brought us to the nature Kesey! Let us see the trees! Let us see the background Kesey.I think is time for a intervention .You are sick Kesey! You are addicted to Tonneh! From now on Keseh is the new Tonneh!!! BTW...that Zeiss 55mm K1.8 looks nice! 🤭
Sony dynamic range is crazy
I love the 3d pop and micro contrast out of mine Leica and zeiss lenses
The best 3D pop comes from consuming certain types of mushrooms. Guaranteed it will look like you can walk right into your images!
That why many of us has Zeiss sonnar 50 mm 1.5 zm, or voigtlander 40 or 50 mm 1.2 VM on our Sony cameras, with techart. And by the way, photographers do say the 3 D pop is real. Maybe not UA-cam photographers since they have afiliated links for modern super sharp lenses at the bottom of their videos
Isn't it also a function of the bigger sensor? Medium format has it even more
Try photographing a dice 🎲 (straight on, only the face of once side) on APS-C Vs Full Frame Vs Medium Format - you'll see something magical occur. Even more interesting if you shoot on a 5x7
and 8x10 camera - that will really blow your mind 💪
This should be about the sensor size vs the subject size. My assumption is sensor size gets bigger so there's more area to see around an object, just like how you get 3d images with two eyes or two cameras side by side, as the sensor size gets bigger this should be contributing to this effect.
Ahhggghh, I dont know what you were talking about. But I can see you were enjoying! In fact it was enjoyable watching ! Very good comedy! Adam Sandler in photographic world! Try Pentax Takumar 50/1.4 Radio active lens! You will not only get 3d pop but that one give Multi universe Pop!
Maybe try some vintage 90s Zeiss glass?